ARCHBISHOP HUGHES AND THE KNOWNOTHINGS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXI, Issue 50, 13 April 1894, Page 29

ARCHBISHOP HUGHES AND THE KNOWNOTHINGS.

THOSE ii dlv.duals, writes William D. Kelly in the Catholic Citizen, ■who imagine that American publ c tentiajent in >y be sirup y liusied to deal wiih Apaism, and who contend tmt ibe wisest policy fir American Catholics to pursue ai the present time is to possess their souls in patience aud to institute no counter crusade against tbe proscriptive organisations that are so busily employed in endeavouring to ostracize and iojure them, would do well to nil ct upon certain events which took place in this country half a century aeo the present year, when tbe so-called Native-American movement, of which fanaiciam Apaism is the direct descenlaat, attained the zenith of its malign influence *ud asserted the diabolism of its real designs

Native-Americanism, to give the progenitor of Apaism a nann to which it bad no title whatsoever, eaily in 1844 showed itself pestilentially active in two of our American municipalities, to wit, Philadelphia and New York. The former city then had &i its resident prelate the Right Bey Francis P. Kenrick, a man of such a peaceful and forbearing disposition that at the time of the Breckenridge controversy he opposed the participation th-rein of Father Hughes, and did all he could to prevent the debi c, believing that patience and silence were the better course to follow. In New York, happily as it proved, the Catholic Church bai for its chief pastor and guide none other than the sturdy priest who, nine years before, bad brought Dr Brvckenndge to grief in public debate, and who in 1838 had been consecrated the Cjaijutor of B shop Dubo.p, whom be fortunately succeeded twoyears before Native-Americanism reiched the height of its powers.

When the Anti-Ca holic bigots began their fiendish work in Philadelphia, Bishop Kenrick, following his natural inclination", and believing that patience was the wiser policy, refrained from taking any steps to counteract the Native-American crusade ; and his priests and people, naturally, imitat-d his example. What was the result? Native-Ameiicanism, interpreting such conduct oa the pan of the Philadelphia Catbo ics as cvi lence of cowardice, became bolder day by day and m >te aggressive; and the outcome of the mistaken Catholic policy was that, early in May, 1844, demonstrations of hostility were made against Catholic churches and convens in the Kensington and Southwark districts of the city ; and these demonstrations were speedily followed by the destruction of two churches, St Michael's and St Augustine'a, the sacking of the Convent of the Sisters of Charity and the demolition of a number of housts inhabited by Catholic families.

Did indignant American sentiment, which assuredly should have awakened in season to prevent these outrages on tie rhiladelphia Catholics, show itself prompt in condemning; them after they had been perpetra'ed, and active in taking steps to prevent any recurrence of similar outbreaks ? Not a bit of it 1 With bat one honourable exception, tbe Spirit of the Times, the daily Press ot PhiladephU main, tamed a 6i!ence concerning these crimes as profouni and inexplicable as that which many of tbe leading dailitsof to-day are exhibiting wi:b regard to Apaism ; th^ municipal authorities appeaiel to have do knowledge of what had been do*e, and when at length, indignant protests from ou'side cities compelled the recreant officers of the law to act, it is r.coided that hhenfT-t and soldiers apologised to tbe jioters for interfering with their diabolical designs and wanton destruction of Catholic property. Before quiet was restored and ordr-r ieasserted, services had to be suapmied in a 1 tbe Catholic churches of Philadelphia, whose prelattg, prieetß and Catholic people recognisi d too late that the submissive policy they bad pursueJ in tie whole affair was a sorely mis'aken one.

The Philadelpbii occurrences Daturally creaed no soull excitement i i >.ew York, where Native-Americanism had shown itß strength by electing a mayor, Harper, though that offLial was not as yet installed ia effi v, and there were gravd apprehe sioos of similar outbreaks in that city. Biehop Hughes was a-ked to issue a pas o-al urgirg the Catnulics to be patient ani submissive, but he resolutely refused to do so, saying that be did not believe in tamely suijtmttitig where lives and property were jeopardised, anl he significantly and publcly declared that if a single Catholic lnsiiutioo in New York was destroyed by tbe Na ivt -Americans, that city would bhare ihe fate which Moscow rxppiienced in 1812. He condemned opeuly tbe tameness and submissivenees of the Philadelphia Cstaolice, wLo, be said, should bave defended their churches when they saw that tbe municipal authorises le'used to do so, and, to prevent any such remissness on tbe pm of his own flock, be gainsoned the piincipal city churches with aimed men, and caused it to be publicly known that these men would defend tbe churches with their lives agaiust any and all attacks. The result was that not a single New York Catholic institution suffered, although tte Naive-Amencans had openly threatened to burn the Cathedral, for the cowards knew tLa John Hughis was a man who meant what be said, and ttey bad no desire to pat his conrage to any fur. her test.

It should not bd imagined, though, that Bishop Hughes, while he armed men for tbe detence of the Catholic churches, did not do all

he could to keep tbe peace and prevent disturbances. On tbe contrary, he was more active than the municipal authorities in thi» respect ; and when news came to New York that a number of the Philadelphia church burners were comi- g to New York to parade the city wi>h the lcoal brethren, he publicly counseled his people to ke<-p aw»y from ths demonstration and give the fanatics no excuse for disurbing tue trarquihty of tne city. Knowing the devilish ingenuity of the men he had to de .1 with, the Bishop did more than this. He called on the Mayor, and, after telling him that he believed that the Native-Americans would not scruple to gtt up a 6ham attack on thtir procest-ion, for tbe sake of having an excuse to attack Catholic citizens a id property, he informed that official, in response to an inquiry what the Bis op would have him do, that he was a churchman, not a public offiiial. " But," he added, "if I were the Mayor, I would examine the laws of the State, and see if there were not attached to the police force a battery of anillery and a squadron of horse ; and I think I should fin I that there were; and if so I should order them out."

Such determined talk as this had its effect. The authorities saw to it that the Native-Americans, while they indulged in their imbecile dtmonstrations and frothy declarations, kept the peace, and Bishop Hnghes looked to it that no Catholic church in the city was left defenceless. Tbe result wae, that although the following July the Native-Ameiicn rioters undertook to attack tbe churcn of St Philip Neri, in Philadelphia, and came into conflict with the State soldiery, causing b'oodshed and loss of life, the New York lodges did not dare to make a move against the Catholic churches in that city, because they knew that over those churches there presided a prelate who also would meet force with force, and could rely upon his people to obey his instructions.

The situmion to-day may not be as grave as it was in Philadelphia and New Yoik fifty years ago ; but it is serious enough id many placep, and any pusillanimity on the part of American Catholics will only teod to aggravate it. The cowardly Apaists, who are now striving to deprive Catholic citizsos of their civic rights and MveJinood, would not hesitate, if they thought they could do so with impunity, to burn Catholic churches and convents and to cause riot and bloodshed in our peaceful towns and villages. Patience with each miscreants is a crime, not a virtue, and the only proper way to treat Apaism is to antagonise it openly and fearlessly wherever it ia found, to exp )?e its fell purposes and i s unders and operations without waiting, as Poiladelphia did in 1844, until tne blackened ruios of sanctuaries and shrines tell of the icily of following any opposite policy.